triggervsuptime-kuma
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| trigger | uptime-kuma | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 76/100 | 88/100 |
| Rank in category | #7 of 32 in Workflow Automation | #3 of 104 in Monitoring & observability |
| GitHub stars | 16 643 | 93 027 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +256 | +1 280 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 49 | 19 |
| Latest release | v4.8.1 · 23 Oct 2026 | 2.5.8 · 26 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Advanced | Easy |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Main language | Typescript | JavaScript |
Which one should you pick?
uptime-kuma scores 88/100 against 76/100 for trigger, so it is the safer default.
trigger ships more often: 49 stable releases in the past year, against 19 for uptime-kuma.
If you want the quickest setup, uptime-kuma is easier to run; trigger needs more configuration.
uptime-kuma is growing faster right now (+1 280 stars in 30 days).
trigger details →uptime-kuma details →
Swap a project
Keep trigger, compare it with
Keep uptime-kuma, compare it with